DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants' submission filed on November 25, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed with the RCE have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicants’ arguments are not responsive to the art rejection and are directed to unclaimed subject matter.
In future replies, the Applicants are requested to provide specification citations for written description support of amendments. Many of the phrases added to claim 1 are not present in the specification. “topology” appears once and not in the context of how it is used in the claim. The terms “electromagnetic force”, “physically decoupled”, “continuous variability” or just “variability”, do not appear at all. It should not be the Office’s burden to sift through the specification to find what disclosure most closely resembles the claim language.
The Applicants cite to the Thrimawithana figures 11 and 12 (Remarks, page 8) to dispute the art rejection, but the art rejection cites to figures 1-5. Figures 11 and 12 are alternative embodiments. Namely, these two figures show that the two resonant circuits share a common source (not separate ones, as in figure 1). Figure 11 then uses a shared coil and figure 12 relies on three transmitter coils. These are all separate embodiments from what is disclosed in figures 1-5. The Applicants do not present any analysis of the figures cited in the art rejection.
At the top of page 9, the Applicants contend that the Thrimawithana topology “ is not comparable to the present invention”, but none of the following descriptions are claimed. The Applicants are describing various examples from the specification – not explicit structural limitations in the claim. “The name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). MPEP §2103(C).
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus and there are no limitations directed to any type of control functionality. The claims do not recite any of the statements made on page 9, including: “the first primary current is mediated by…”, that the electromotive force includes a “phase [that] can be set at any angle”, the primary coils are supplied with voltage shifted by 1800, “there is no regulation of phase shift between the first primary and the second primary”, or “the way the present invention regulates the current of the series compensated primary winding…” (the last quote bridges pages 9-10).
Next, the Applicants state that “One of the main features of the present invention is a possibility of maintaining [] ZCS …” (Remarks, page 9, middle, emphasis added). A hypothetical “possibility” does not further narrow the claim to overcome the reference.
The Applicants note the Examiner’s rejection of canceled claim 21, but they do not address why the claim was interpreted as being broad. Namely the claim used the passive phrase, “is accomplished”, which was interpreted as not introducing any distinct control functionality. The Applicants current amendments do not correct this issue. They neither amend the claims to recite actual control/functionality limitations nor argue why the claim does not require them.
The Applicants’ contention that Thrimawithana is not “suggestive” of zero mutual inductance between the two primary windings has no merit (Remarks, page 10, end of the first paragraph). The reference explicitly states, “In another example, the coils may be overlapped so as to have minimal or zero mutual coupling between them” (par 89, lines 9-11, emphasis added). If the Applicants intend to dispute this disclosure, they need to do more than simply “disagree”.
The amended limitations recites “wherein the WPT system comprises a topology”. This topology is the structure that has been previously recited and the clarifying penultimate limitation that the first/second primary windings are physically decoupled. The wherein clause recites that this topology/structure is “configured to regulate the first primary winding current” but does not indicate any active control circuitry to make it so. There are no controllers to know when to take an action, there is no controllable circuit (converter, switch, etc.) for the controller to manipulate to change voltage and/or current in the system.
Claim 1 recites three passive winding circuits (each winding is just an inductor), their respective passive tuning networks (made of capacitors and/or inductors), and two input AC power systems (a generic AC source with no defined controllability). Even claims 2-3 only broadly recite that they are voltage regulated or current regulated – this is a passive function (the feedback loop necessary for self-regulation does not require outside intervention or control). None of the claims recite that either of these AC power systems are ever controlled, commanded or updated to change how they operate.
Lastly, the specification (par 60-62) describes inherent equations that illustrate the effect of voltage and current in the system (the topology of which is built using passive circuit elements). The equations end with the statement of “Thus, by controlling the secondary primary winding voltage it is possible to decrease the emissions caused by the concentrated first primary winding and allows for higher power transfer…” (par 65).
No such “control” appears in the claim. The language that the “topology is configured to regulate” is a statement about structure – it is not control. It may be that there is a nonobvious control functionality within the inherent equations that the Applicants present (par 60-62) – but it is their responsibility to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which they regard as the invention. 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
The amended language of claim 1 is interpreted as descriptive. It references what the structure (that Thrimawithana anticipates) is configured to regulate do without reciting any additional elements for how the regulation is achieved. If the passive limitations of claim 1 are “configured to regulate” as claimed, then so is Thrimawithana’s circuit.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the Covic reference was incorrectly added to the §103 statement of rejection (the reference was not relied upon to establish the obviousness rejection). It is unclear why the Applicants present arguments against the Covic disclosure (Remarks, page 11). The Applicants do not address or rebut the actual modification analysis of Thrimawithana for claims 9 and 18.
Regarding claims 11 and 20, the Applicants’ arguments do not address the reasons for why Widmer was cited. The remarks are limited to why Widmer does not teach limitations added to claim 1.
The art rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“with continuous variability” is not understood. This term does not appear in the specification. The two primary winding circuits are “physically decoupled”, it is unclear why an additional conditional statement needs to be added to define when or how much the two windings aren’t touching.\
The last limitation is missing an “is” before “independent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-17, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thrimawithana (US 2018/0233953).
With respect to claim 1, Thrimawithana discloses a WPT system (fig 1-5; par 81-105), comprising:
a first primary winding circuit PW1 (bottom half) having a first AC power system AC1 (5), first winding PW1 (9), and a series compensation tuning network (7; see par 84, last sentence);
a second primary winding circuit PW2 (top half) having a second AC power system AC2 (4), a second winding PW2 (8), and a parallel compensation tuning network (6; see par 84, last sentence);
wherein the PW1 and PW2 are spatially positioned with respect to one another where the mutual inductance, M12, between PW1 and PW2 is zero or substantially zero (par 89);
a secondary winding circuit (21) having a load (connected to 3; par 90 discloses that it can be a vehicle battery) and secondary winding SW (10 and/or 11), the SW spatially positioned adjacent to PW1 and PW2 where the mutual inductance between PW1 and SW is not zero and the mutual inductance between PW2 and SW is not zero (par 90; M11 and M22 are not zero to actually transfer power to the secondary); and,
a power control system (shown in figs 2 and 4, labeled “primary controller”; par 88-89, 92, 98) for controlling input AC power to each of AC1 and AC2;
wherein the WPT system comprises a topology (this refers to the structure previously recited, and includes the “physically decoupled” language towards the end of the claim) is configured to regulate (as the WPT system topology/structure is entirely passive – any regulation is coincidental and/or an inherent benefit/side-effect) the first primary winding circuit with a current from the second primary winding circuit using only voltage induced into the SW from electromagnetic force (since Thrimawithana anticipates the structure of the claim, it is interpreted as being “configured to regulate” in the same way), such topology comprising:
the first/second primary winding circuits re physically decoupled with continuous variability (see fig 1- the two primary winding circuits do not touch); and
a load current of the secondary winding circuit [is] independent of a source voltage of the secondary primary winding circuit (this is descriptive of the topology/structure – since Thrimawithana anticipates the structure, it would have the same independent current benefit).
As discussed above, the claim is directed to an entirely passive WPT system. The two AC sources, the three tuning networks and the three winding circuits are not controllable – they just are. The specification (par 60-62) describes inherent equations that describe the electrical operation of the WPT system. Since Thrimawithana anticipates the structure, it follows that it would abide by the same electrical/magnetic laws and be represented by the same equations. If the Applicants’ passive WPT system can be “configured to regulate” just by observing inherent mathematical equations, then so can Thrimawithana.
With respect to claim 2, Thrimawithana discloses AC1 is a voltage regulated AC power source (par 92, “primary [] bridge converters [] driving the primary 20 [] LCL networks, are controlled to produce voltages”).
With respect to claim 3, Thrimawithana discloses AC2 is a current regulated AC power source (par 89, “primary side converters generate a controller current [] in the primary windings”).
With respect to claim 4, Thrimawithana discloses the series compensation tuning network includes a capacitor (see fig 4, Cpi,2; par 98) in series with PW1.
With respect to claim 5, Thrimawithana discloses the secondary winding circuit includes a series compensation tuning network having a capacitor (see fig 2, item Csi,1 and/or fig 4, item Csi,2) in series with SW.
With respect to claim 6, Thrimawithana discloses the parallel compensation tuning network includes a capacitor (see fig 2, Cpt; par 92) in parallel with PW2.
With respect to claim 7, Thrimawithana discloses the AC2 supplies current at a frequency equivalent to a voltage frequency of AC1 (par 88). In at least one embodiment, the two Thrimawithana inverters (AC1, AC2) are tuned to the same fundamental frequency fT.
With respect to claim 8, Thrimawithana discloses AC1 supplies voltage at a characteristic frequency of PW1 (par 88, FT).
With respect to claim 10, Thrimawithana discloses the WPT is an electric vehicle charging system (par 90) and where the first primary winding circuit and second primary winding circuit are ground-mounted (because they are not on a vehicle) and the secondary winding circuit is vehicle-mounted (because it is on a vehicle) .
With respect to claims 12-17 and 19, Thrimawithana discloses the recited limitations, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 3-8 and 10, respectively. The only difference in the claim is that claims 12-17 and 19 depend directly from 1, while claims 3-8 and 10 depend from each other in ascending order.
With respect to claim 22, Thrimawithana discloses regulation the WPT system, as discussed above in the art rejection of claims 1-3. Thrimawithana discloses the two primary winding circuits and the secondary winding circuit, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 1. Thrimawithana discloses a power control system for controlling input AC power to each of AC1 and AC2, as discussed above in the art rejection of claims 2-3 (see par 92).
Claim 22 repeats much of the same language as claim 1.
Instead of reciting what the topology is configured to regulate, claim 22 gives this configuration to the primary winding circuit. This is ineffective to impart any narrowing structural limitations into the claim. The winding is a passive inductor – a piece of mental wound in a coil. This is its configuration. That the Applicants have observed that a proximate secondary primary winding can have an affect on the first to regulate its current does not change/affect the structure of the first primary winding circuit. The ability to regulate the first primary winding circuit is provided by the entire WPT – the structure of all the components and their relative positions (and being physically decoupled) – it is not a function of just the first primary winding circuit structure.
The phrase “configured to [function]” is structural – it is not a functional limitation. It defines structure by what it can accomplish without further modifications. For example, a capacitor is an electronic component with two charged plates separated by a dielectric. This is its configuration. A capacitor can act in different ways in a circuit. For example, an in-series capacitor would act as a high-pass filter while a parallel-connected capacitor would act as a low-pass filter. Different effects achieved by exactly the same structure. The “configuration” do make the capacitor do these other things is given by the circuitry as a whole – not by just the capacitor itself. Similarly, the Applicants’ first primary winding circuit is a passive circuit component (inductor) that reacts to how it is placed in a circuit and what is around it.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrimawithana.
Thrimawithana discloses one pair of first/second primary windings. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to duplicated the Thrimawithana system to have a plurality of pairs. The mere duplication of parts has not patentable significance because there is new or unexpected result. MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B). By adding more coil pairs, the size of the transmitter will increase, offering a greater chance at achieving alignment (improved coupling to a receiver) and/or the ability to transmit higher amounts of power.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrimawithana in view of Widmer (US 2015/0170833).
Thrimawithana discloses the WPT system of claims 1 and 10, but does not expressly disclose a sensor to detect a living being. Widmer discloses a WPT comprises at least one sensor (par 79) configured to detect a human or animal within a charging perimeter and wherein the power control system is configured to transfer power at a first power level if a human or animal is within the charging perimeter and at a second power level is a human or animal is outside the charging perimeter (obvious).
Widmer states that a “safety” sensor detects the presence of a human within a certain distance of the wireless power transmission coils. The use of “safety” here obviously means that a corresponding action is taken to ensure the safety of the people approaching a high-power area. This obviously includes reducing power. The Examiner also notes that the claim only broadly numbers the powers – there is no explicit limitation in the claim that these powers are “different” or which is intended to be higher.
Thrimawithana and Widmer are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters supplying power to vehicles. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Thrimawithana to include the safety sensor, as taught by Widmer. The motivation for doing so would have been to protect people that may be near the vehicle as it is being charged/powered.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rex Barnie can be reached at 5712722800 x36. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADI AMRANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836